You know, with so many people angered over the perceived corporate cowardice of Comedy Central, and the assertion that being worried over violent response is having a chilling effect on free expression, and how terrible it all is, and how someone should do something…
Here’s a thought. If you want to make a point about rights of free expression and standing firm in the face of potential negative reaction, here’s what you can do:
Go to Harlem, or to Watts, or any area with a heavily black population. Go at night. Go to a busy bar, or where you see a large group of residents congregating, and at the top of your lungs, start doing some of the Samuel L. Jackson speeches from “Pulp Fiction” where every other word is “ņìggër.” Say it loud. Say it proud. This was an Oscar-nominated winner of the Cannes Film Festival. Hit the word “ņìggër” particularly hard. Be firece. Be convincing.
See how that works out for you.
If you’re black, then you be the organizer. Find a white guy to be the guinea pig (how difficult could that be), and then try to convince bystanders that he’s just exercising free speech in the interest of political commentary.
What’s that, you say? You’re afraid you’ll get the crap kicked out of you? Your face bloodied? Your car destroyed? Well…yes. That’s a valid concern. And as the doctor is putting you back together or the mechanic is surveying the damage, they’ll ask you what happened, and you tell them, and if they say anything other than “Were you OUT of your MIND?” then what’s left of you can call the experiment a success. Or at least that’s what you can tell your lawyer after you’ve been arrested for inciting a riot and engaging in hate crimes.
While everyone’s busy sneering at newspapers or TV stations for being gutless, let’s remember that it is considered completely standard, acceptable and even–dare I say it–racially sensitive in every positive sense for people to say “the n-word” rather than “ņìggër.” Be honest: I’m saying it here, and your reaction, whoever you are, is to flinch or get angry. I’m using it to make a point, but it won’t surprise me if it gets angry letters to my publishers declaring, “Peter David wrote something that upset me! I’m never going to buy any of his books again, and you shouldn’t publish him!”
Because reprisals comes in all shapes and all sizes.
PAD
• 
I think the phrase “n-word” is far more offensive than the word “ņìggër”. Why did you have to offend me like that?
At least our hypothetical Harlem residents will take out their anger on the actual person who caused their distress, as opposed to just setting whatever is nearby on fire.
But I agree with you that Comedy Central has valid concerns about portraying Mohammed. However, I think in large part it is the fault of the West’s reactions to the Danish cartoon row. Had they shown the slightest bit of guts in the beginning it would have been far more difficult for the crazies to target individuals now…but that ship has sailed. At least CC is now admitting that they did it out of fear, which I respect a lot more than, say, the New York Times pretending that they give a rat’s ášš about being insensitive to religious beliefs.
I will be utterly unamazed if elements of the extreme in Christianity , Judaism, hëll, there may be some violent Quakers for all I know, if all of them don’t get the message loud and clear–threats work. These guys will back down. You CAN control the message.
Jeeze, if White Guys, corrupt businessmen, and neo-nazis start organized marches who the hëll will we be able to portray as villians? Visogoths? Hessions? Lumerians?
Bûllšhìŧ.
Most in the media have NO PROBLEM skewering every other religious icon EXCEPT Mohammed. That makes them hypocrites, regardless of whether they are afraid of violence or not. It also makes them bullies, knowing that the people who have faith in those OTHER icons generally won’t be trying to kill them.
Comparing that to someone shouting “ņìggër” in a black neighborhood shows a monumental failure to grasp the reality of the kind of war we are waging.
Comparing that to someone shouting “ņìggër” in a black neighborhood shows a monumental failure to grasp the reality of the kind of war we are waging.
I’d have to agree.
There is nothing inherently offensive in a portrayal of Mohammed.
It’s just that too many Muslims have their heads up their collective áššëš that everybody must do what they want.
This is America. It is not Iraq, or Iran. We are not under Islamic law. We do not live the medieval, ášš-back lifestyle that too many of them live.
Maybe we should just amend the 1st Amendment to say that free speech is ok, unless Islamic law gets in the way, cause we sure wouldn’t want to piss those people off now would we?
I can’t wait to see what these guys demand of us next.
“Comparing that to someone shouting “ņìggër” in a black neighborhood shows a monumental failure to grasp the reality of the kind of war we are waging.”
Not really, especially since that isn’t what I did. First, I framed it in a way that it wasn’t simply shouting racial epithets, but doing a dramatic rendition of an established critically acclaimed work. And second, I simply pointed out that not only was exhibiting self-censorship because of fears of reprisals for certain types of expressions nothing new, but if it’s around long enough, it becomes accepted as being “sensitive” and “respectful” rather than knuckling under to fear.
Which I find, if nothing else, interesting.
PAD
“There is nothing inherently offensive in a portrayal of Mohammed. It’s just that too many Muslims have their heads up their collective áššëš that everybody must do what they want.”
And why would that be? Because they find it inherently offensive.
What you mean is that there’s nothing inherently offensive TO YOU about it. Nor to me. Nor, dare I say, to the majority of Muslims.
But then there’s the other guys…
PAD
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at April 15, 2006 01:04 AM
I’d have to agree.
There is nothing inherently offensive in a portrayal of Jesus.
It’s just that too many Christians have their heads up their collective áššëš that everybody must do what they want.
This is America. It is not the Vatican, or Medieval Europe. We are not under Biblical law. We do not live the medieval, ášš-back lifestyle that too many of them live.
Maybe we should just amend the 1st Amendment to say that free speech is ok, unless biblical law gets in the way, cause we sure wouldn’t want to piss those people off now would we?
I can’t wait to see what these guys demand of us next.
=================
Muslums aren’t the only ones who throw tantrums when they don’t get their way.
There’s nothing inherently offensive about cutting a hole in a piece of cloth and wearing it as a poncho. But when Kid Rock did it with a US flag, a few people were offended.
But cutting a hole in a flag is different than cutting a hole in cloth…we view flags differently.
Muslims view portrayals of Muhammed differently than other religions view portrayals of their religious leaders.
Riots aren’t the answer — but is provoking riots the question?
Maybe we should just amend the 1st Amendment to say that free speech is ok, unless biblical law gets in the way, cause we sure wouldn’t want to piss those people off now would we?
No need to amend anything. As long as Congress doesn’t forbid portrayal of religious figures, then the first amendment isn’t violated.
Any corporation or individual is allowed to censor speech. Only the US Government is prohibited from doing so by the first amendment.
Send pornography to Highlights Magazine for Children. They will not publish it. That does make them censorers. They are censoring what their readers will read. But that is their right.
Comedy Central is not required by law to air anything that is submitted to them for airing. And when they choose to show restraint, that is not a violation of free speech.
Matt and Trey do have an option. They can take their show elsewhere. They can air it elsewhere. Their free speech rights have not been violated.
“Matt and Trey do have an option. They can take their show elsewhere. They can air it elsewhere. Their free speech rights have not been violated.”
Here’s an interesting thought: Let’s say they announce the DVD set will have the pixilation gone. They’re unexpurgated.
And immediately Blockbuster and Best Buy and Hollywood Video all refuse to carry it. You just KNOW it’s possible. Even likely.
So which is better? To have the DVD set feature the show as aired so it can go out to more people? Or to have it be unexpurgated and corporately shunned?
Lots of questions. Lots to think about.
PAD
Peter David: Go to Harlem, or to Watts, or any area with a heavily black population. Go at night. Go to a busy bar, or where you see a large group of residents congregating, and at the top of your lungs, start doing some of the Samuel L. Jackson speeches from “Pulp Fiction” where every other word is “ņìggër.” Say it loud. Say it proud. This was an Oscar-nominated winner of the Cannes Film Festival. Hit the word “ņìggër” particularly hard. Be firece. Be convincing. See how that works out for you….Or at least that’s what you can tell your lawyer after you’ve been arrested for inciting a riot and engaging in hate crimes.
Luigi Novi: Which you arguably would be guilty of, since A. you were on someone else’s property, and B. you were probably not doing what you did because of a love of cinema, given the location you chose. If one wants, they should do this in public, and indeed, white supremacists have gone to New York City to do this, which the courts ruled they have the right to do.
Peter’s example is very good. While that would be an expression of free speech, it would also be idiotic.
The idiocy isn’t even free speech related. We *should* be able to go anywhere in the country safely. However, if someone goes down a dark alley late at night in a bad neighborhood just to prove that he can, he’s an idiot. Whether he has a right to safety or not, we all know that going down that alley was a bad idea.
Should South Park be able to show Muhammad? Yes. Was CC decision correct in not to letting them? Yes. Even though Matt and Trey were right that in that they should be able to do it, CC was right in not letting them do it. The world is just that complex.
Just imagine me standing up and applauding you, Michael – much better said than anything I was going to.
This is sort of related to the controversy at large, so I thought I’d say it here, just to give another example of the censorship thing in practice–or not, depending on your point of view. In the university I go to, a few months ago, the university paper published a cartoon strip that basically showed Jesus giving a bløw jøb to a cartoon pig, named Capitalist Pig. While there were no riots, there were massive demonstrations, media attention, and complaints until the editor of the paper had to resign to make things go away–despite the fact that he had been ill during the week the cartoon went out, and never saw the thing until it was in print. Personally, I thought the cartoon was in bad taste, and, more importantly, not remotely funny or thought provoking, just bad taste. Any thoughts?
Any thoughts?
Thank goodness OUR religious fanatics won’t blow you up, they’ll just destroy your career and your life. Ain’t living in a more civilized society grand?
-Rex Hondo-
Basically, the Jesus/pig cartoon is just a smaller scale example of the same thing. Free speech isn’t the issue, that was just stupid.
Posted by: John at April 15, 2006 01:43 AM
But cutting a hole in a flag is different than cutting a hole in cloth…we view flags differently.
Well, that’s the thing, isn’t it? Who’s “we”?
I’m a Brit, so we don’t have that pesky First Amendment to worry about (although I fervently wish we did)… but the idea of raising a flag to that level of respect that the flag itself becomes more important that what it represents.. yeah, that’s one I can’t get my head around.
This whole line of argument sounds suspiciously like an endorsement of the legitimacy of the heckler’s veto.
J.
Don’t feel bad, Budgie. Some of us on this side of the pond have trouble with it, too.
-Rex Hondo-
Once more PAD misses the point.
Comedy Central wasn’t going to a Muslim neighborhood to broadcast South Park, they were doing it right here in the USA, where the first amendment is pretty meaningless if even writers don’t actually support it…
Well, that’s the thing, isn’t it? Who’s “we”?
I’m a Brit, so we don’t have that pesky First Amendment to worry about (although I fervently wish we did)… but the idea of raising a flag to that level of respect that the flag itself becomes more important that what it represents.. yeah, that’s one I can’t get my head around.
Indeed. Another Brit here and the whole idea of people getting upset over someone burning a flag seems ridiculous to me too. You could publically wipe your áršë with a Union Flag in front of me and I’d care not one jot.
I guess it’s a cultural difference that seems ridiculous to me, but is something to get upset about to you.
A bit like, say, someone drawing a picture of the Prophet.
It’s important to be able to tell the difference between something done selfishly and something done truly as a matter of principle.
If there are rumblings about a new anti-flag-burning amendment, you can rush out and burn a flag in front of the Capitol Building. But what are you doing, really? You’re not sending the message “This is a terrible proposal with potentially chilling effects on political free speech.” You’re saying “Ha! You can’t stop _me_ from burning a flag!” You would have done far more good for Society by donating that $30 to a group fighting the amendment, instead of using it to buy a flag and a thing of lighter fluid at Wal*Mart.
Similarly, intentionally putting out a cartoon of the Prophet at a specific time in recent history when this is known to send a certain category of religious whackjobs right over the edge isn’t a celebration of Free Expression. To a certain extent, it’s a celebration of ego. What have you accomplished, really, apart from re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-confirming that yes, there are indeed a lot of religious whackjobs out there?
I’ve already expressed my change of heart in the “Cowboy Pete Follow-Up to South Park–Cartoon Wars” thread, so I won’t write much more here. I’ll only say that I contemplated posting a cartoon of Mohammed on my Web site, and trying to draw as much attention to it as possible, to say “screw you” to the terrorists.
Then I contemplated the possiblity that someone besides me could be hurt by something like that. And I couldn’t go through with it.
It’s real easy to condemn other people as cowards until you put yourself in their shoes. Trust me, I know. Because I was one of the loudest voices of condemnation, but I’ve quieted down since I’ve tried on the footwear.
Clarification: When I say “someone besides me could be hurt by something like that,” I refer to the possibility that posting a cartoon image of Mohammed on my Web site could provoke further violence on the part of Muslim extremists.
Maybe that was obvious, but I hate it when I leave things unintentionally vague!
Which you arguably would be guilty of, since A. you were on someone else’s property, and B. you were probably not doing what you did because of a love of cinema, given the location you chose. If one wants, they should do this in public, and indeed, white supremacists have gone to New York City to do this, which the courts ruled they have the right to do.
White people have publicly reenacted Sam Jackson scenes from Pulp Fiction in NYC?
This reminds me of what Greg Josefowicz allegedly wrote when people were complaining about Borders not stocking copies of Free Inquiry which reprinted the Mohammed cartoons: ” run a bookstore. A book store. I run a big bookstore. I’ve got 34,000 people, real people, working for me every day in lots of places around the US and in other countries too. Those people owe Borders, every day, one good day’s work. Borders owes the people who work for it a safe day’s work… At Borders we make a ‘business’ out of Free Speech and Free Expression. It’s a core value. Three other not-so-obvious and possibly competing core values at Borders are 1) Make a profit, 2) No riots in the store, ever, especially not in the Children’s section, and 3) All employees and patrons get to home at the end of the day without a side trip to a hospital.”
“Which you arguably would be guilty of, since A. you were on someone else’s property, and B. you were probably not doing what you did because of a love of cinema, given the location you chose.”
Someone else’s property? A public bar? A public sidewalk? A street? Luigi, what are you talking about?
As for why I was doing it…what difference should THAT make? Motivation shouldn’t be the issue; rights should be the issue. Equal protection should be the issue. (Which, by the way, is probably why I dislike the entire notion of “hate crimes.” The question of determining motivation of a crime should be if the person HAD motivation or not. Not what TYPE of motivation they had. I’m not a big believer in punishing someone for what they’re thinking.)
“This whole line of argument sounds suspiciously like an endorsement of the legitimacy of the heckler’s veto.”
I can see how it would, except I didn’t “endorse” anything. Do you see me saying I think newspapers tiptoeing around and saying “the n-word” is a good thing? If a newspaper is covering an inflammatory speech, they should feel free to write, “The Grand High Wizard went on to say, “Let’s kill all the ņìggërš!” whereupon a riot broke out,” not “The Grand High Wizard went on to encourage the murder of African-Americans, and included use of the n-word.” But I will venture to say that there are many people, including some on this board, who would contend that the latter is the preferred method of reportage.
I simply said it’s nothing new, and furthermore, in some instances, what is today’s anger towards self-censorship becomes tomorrow’s “sensitivity toward racial and religious harmony.”
“Once more PAD misses the point. Comedy Central wasn’t going to a Muslim neighborhood to broadcast South Park, they were doing it right here in the USA, where the first amendment is pretty meaningless if even writers don’t actually support it…”
And once more Bladestar misses the point, which is that right here in the good old US of A, people always have the option of switching to another channel or even (gasp) turning off the TV if something offensive is going to air. But when I complained how various groups pushed the Ronald Reagan biopic off network or screwed over “The Book of Daniel,” conservatives were quick to jump on me and say, Oh heavens no, the networks were just being sensitive to the needs of Reagan’s family or devout religious folks, and by the way, the movie and/or show in question was really pretty terrible anyway.
So now a network does pretty much the same thing except it’s for people NOT in this country, and you condemn Comedy Central. So please: Spare me the bûllšhìŧ, especially when not one person here has yet to step up and say that they would have risked the “Daily Show” death scenario I described further down were they in charge of Comedy Central. The first amendment means that Parker and Stone had the right to write what they desired without interference from Congress. And that’s exactly what happened. If the show hadn’t aired because Congress stepped in and forbade Comedy Central to air it, that’s a different story. But that’s not what happened. So again…spare me the bûllšhìŧ, especially since I happen to think my first amendment credentials are pretty solid, what with…y’know…my allowing you to post here.
PAD
PAD
You are really off track here Peter.
In fact you wrote the word “ņìggër” in your post. As in fact, I just did. Nìggër, ņìggër, ņìggër…
Did I just offend anyone? probably. But I have the right to write that.
Would I go to Harlem and shout “ņìggër”? No way. I’m not stupid. But if I did and was then beaten to a pulp, it would be those that beat me who would be wrong.
Neither would I go to a Muslim country with a banner portraying Mohammed. But to know say the world at large should no longer show his image is also wrong.
CC had every right not to show Mohammed on SP. They were just cowardly to do it.
Posted by edhopper at April 15, 2006 10:23 AM
They were just cowardly to do it.
Ed, put up a Web site if you don’t already have one (it’s an inexpensive thing to do these days), put up an image of Mohammed and publicize it. Let people know you did it. Then you can accuse others of being cowards. Otherwise, your outrage rings hollow. As did mine.
This is exactly why I publicly reversed my stance. It was easy to accuse Comedy Central of cowardice before I walked in their shoes. But then I was faced with the very real choice of whether or not to post an image of Mohammed on my Web site and make a big stink about it to attract attention. I decided I couldn’t live with the risk, however small, that my choice could provoke some kind of violence resulting in injury or death for someone else.
In these web discussions, I stay ananomous. And not because I shy away from my statements. It’s an indentity and fraud thing.
That said, in my real life I am an artist and illustrator and I have done illustrations of Mohammed and Islamic symbols that were published.
So yes I have, put it out there.
Ed, I got the illo you e-mailed. Very nice work. You’re extremely talented, far moreso than I am. I hate you.
Anyway, I called you out and your hand was better than mine. I concede. Kudos to you for putting your money where your mouth is, and shame on me for assuming you hadn’t.
Have you gotten any flak over this? If so, what kind of flak? Any regrets? Just curious.
To be fair, though, Ed, I don’t know enough about what you’ve done to know if it’s comparable to the South Park/Comedy Central situation (and I respect your desire for anonymity so I understand if you don’t want to delve into this subject). South Park is a super-high-visibility target and that may have made the choice more difficult for Comedy Central’s decision-makers.
(By the way, that’s not a slam on your work. I don’t know how widely it’s been seen or how easy it is to trace to you. I’m just floating a thought out there, not trying to slam you.)
John –
Riots aren’t the answer — but is provoking riots the question?
These are people who get pìššëd øff by EVERYTHING we do.
bin Laden caused 9/11 because we won’t get out of the Middle East – so, should we be leaving the Middle East and cowering in fear?
It’s what bin Laden wants, so apparently we should.
Btw, here’s what Wikipedia has to say on the matter of depictions of Mohammed:
“Depictions of Muhammad usually refer to drawings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad and can be a contentious matter.
Oral and written descriptions are readily accepted by all traditions of Islam, while Muslims differ as to whether or not visual depictions of Muhammad are permissible: Some Muslims believe that to prevent idolatry and shirk, or ascribing partners to God, visual depictions of Muhammad and other prophets of Islam should be prohibited. Other Muslims believe respectful depictions should be allowed. Both sides have produced great Islamic art — the aniconists through calligraphy and arabesque, the pictorialists through book illustration and architectural decoration.
The vast majority of Muslims are hurt or shocked by negative portrayals of Muhammad, whether spoken, written, drawn, or filmed, see Muslim veneration for Muhammad.”
Note the specific wording used: Not all Muslims think images of Mohammed are offensive.
But, not surprisingly, negative portrayals piss them off. Well, that’s a pretty fair view of things.
But the fact remains we’re letting extremists win. After the riots, some Muslims came out saying “well, we don’t like it, but it’s not worth getting pìššëd øff about”. Which is, on the whole, how Christians are going to react to the use of Jesus in this South Park episode.
Bowing down to the pressure of the fringe groups is NOT the way to go.
Hmm, I just decided to give the entire link to the Wikipedia article instead:
Depiction of Muhammed.
And, call me surprised, there’s even a Gary Larson The Far Side cartoon there.
At least it has nothing to do with Summer Redstone (Chairman of VIACOM) having been in the Gulf Region working out a transmission deal with many of the countries there.
Peter David: Someone else’s property? A public bar? A public sidewalk? A street? Luigi, what are you talking about?
Luigi Novi: I was referring to the “busy bar” suggestion you brought up.
Peter David: As for why I was doing it…what difference should THAT make?
Luigi Novi: It determines largely whether you’d do it. If a filmmaker or other artist finds himself/herself being denied his or her voice regarding a work that he or she really believes in, he/she will fight for it. But the scenario you describe doesn’t really have anything to do with that, as it seems to depict some schmuck just antagonizing a crowd of blacks for the hëll of it. It’s like telling a hunter or a zoologist that if he/she really believes in what he/she does, then he should be willing to risk death by going up to a lion unarmed and poking it in the ášš with a stick. Should I go to a bar to do what you suggest? I don’t think so. But if I have a TV show and wish to write an episode with a strong message, even if it risks violence, I should be able to tell that message, which I would want to do, and without being unduly edited or censored.
Peter David: So now a network does pretty much the same thing except it’s for people NOT in this country, and you condemn Comedy Central. So please: Spare me the bûllšhìŧ, especially when not one person here has yet to step up and say that they would have risked the “Daily Show” death scenario I described further down were they in charge of Comedy Central.
Luigi Novi: Okay. Here goes……….
I would’ve risked it.
And as far as the Reagan movie, I don’t believe, for my part, that I ever took the position that the networks were just being sensitive, nor did I watch The Book of Daniel.
The analogy doesn’t hold up. Comedy Central wasn’t forcing anyone to watch the episode. Your hypothetical involved taking a scene for Pulp Fiction and acting it out in front of bar patrons in Harlem, Watts, or any other place white folks like to imagine unruly black folks spending their time. These hypothetical black people didn’t enter the bar to watch scenes from movies be acted out. They just wanted to have a beer and do some socializing. People that watch South Park want to be entertained with rude cartoon children that say and do rude things. At least that is why I watch it. Having the episode censored because it might outrage people that don’t even watch it is wrong. Your analogy would be more true if instead of white people acting out a scene from Pulp Fiction, Miramax where to pull the movie and not let anyone watch it in it’s present form. That is after all what Comedy Central did.
Btw, PAD, for the record, if the scene with Jesus çráppìņg on everybody had been Mohammed, instead of Jesus, then I might actually be agreeing with you.
That scene illustrates one of the most important points in all of this: it’s ok to insult Christians because they’re generally not going to threaten violence against you over it.
And when you get down to it, it really shouldn’t be ok to use Jesus in such a manner if you can’t use Mohammed, regardless of who it insults and how. It’s still an insult.
Maybe the Muslims have it right – they don’t like idoltry of Mohammed, where as I, personally, think too many Christians get too hung up on Jesus, rather than what he represented (kind of like flag burning stuff, too).
Well, at least this has made the people who try to draw broad analogies between the Islamic fundamentalists and the Christian ones look pretty foolish. Jesus is shown çráppìņg on the flag and the response has been….
No riots, no army, no fighting, no slogans.
Face it, our crazies are just in fewer number and a BIT less crazy than theirs.
Anyway, let me add to Luigi’s statement; I would have run the cartoon as well, unedited. But PAD is right that it would be risky; my argument is that in giving in they may have INCREASED the liklihood of other things becoming risks of violence.
Excatly!
Giving in to the terrorists when they didn’t even make a threat this time (how many teorrorists have even heard of Comedy Central?) just teaches them that terrorism DOES work.
Grats on being part of the problem PAD…
0 – Mohammed says: Quit being terrorists
-+- my followers, you’re
| making me look bad!
/ \
Posted by: Bladestar at April 15, 2006 04:21 PM
Grats on being part of the problem PAD…
Peter, I had no idea that in addition to being a hard-working writer you were also secretly an executive at Comedy Central, and an Al Qaeda operative to boot. How do you find the time?
The “nobody can depict Mohammed” is a very recent development. It’s being used as a way of certain militant Muslims to see how far they can throw their weight around. They are demanding that all the world obey their particular religious beliefs, regardless of where in the world we might be or what faith (or no faith) we might have. And they are backing up these demands with violence. Not even threats of violence — just talk to Theo Van Gogh. You’ll have to shout, though; he’s got a pretty bad case of Stabbed To Death In The Street By Muslim Whackjob, and odds of recovery are pretty slim. Or perhaps you can ask Salman Rushdie; last I heard, he was working as a Rockette.
The question is simple: do we have the right to not obey their laws in our own lands? And to what lengths will we go to defend that right?
To Comedy Central, to Borders Books, to most of the mainstream media, the answer is “kinda yes, in theory, but we won’t push it.”
The logical followup is for other groups tired of getting dumped on by the media (metaphor inspired by Comedy Central) to simply start issuing their own threats of violence. How long do you think Piss Christ will remain on public display once the Pope declares the museum and its staff fair game for killing? Or, if I may hit a little closer to home, how about if a bunch of Kahanists threatened to burn any library or bookstore that carried “Imzadi” for its disrespect for Passover?
J.
“To be fair, though, Ed, I don’t know enough about what you’ve done to know if it’s comparable to the South Park/Comedy Central situation (and I respect your desire for anonymity so I understand if you don’t want to delve into this subject). South Park is a super-high-visibility target and that may have made the choice more difficult for Comedy Central’s decision-makers.’
The illustration you saw was in a small circulation (but national) magazine called Free Inquiry. Not national TV. But that is where I was doing the work.
And just to illustrate some one doing the right thing they re-published the actuall Danish cartoons that started all this.
I do think this is a matter of two understandable sides. There was a danger for CC to show Muhammed. Most time I’m in agreement with PAD. This time I’m not.
I just think there are times to stand for what is right. Usually PAD does too. This time, he doesn’t think so.
“Grats on being part of the problem PAD…”
“Peter, I had no idea that in addition to being a hard-working writer you were also secretly an executive at Comedy Central, and an Al Qaeda operative to boot. How do you find the time?”
Yeah, that’s pretty staggering, I know. I mean, in addition to being on the board for the CBLDF, and writing a column that’s donated tens of thousands of dollars to the funds, and maintaining a blog with a free speech policy, as it so happens I also run Comedy Central and am thus part of the “problem.” Would that I knew what the “problem” was, exactly. I think it’s pretty amusing that people so craven they post from anonymity sit in judgment of others and accuse THEM of cowardice.
As for those who declare that they would have aired the episode…mm hmm. So you’re willing to take the risk. Very commendable. And would you have consulted the hundreds of employees of Comedy Central before putting them at risk? And would you be there at every taping of the “Daily Show” to share the risk? How about the several thousand employees of Viacom? Going to run it past them? See how they feel about it?
And while you’re pondering that, consider this: Just as people have a right of free speech to say what they want…Comedy Central has an equal right to air what they want, and what they don’t.
PAD
Terrorism works…’nuff said.
Hëll, anyone who watches the Daily Show regularly or has seen ANY of Carlos Mencia knows that Comedy Central isn’s afraid to skewer anybody, Muslims included. In just this one instance, however, they decided to edit something deliberately and blatantly inflammatory.
So, don’t fret TOO much PAD. Most of the complaining is pretty much a geek version of macho armchair-quarterback horseshit. I doubt very highly that most of these “defenders of free speech” say everything they’re thinking at all times in the interest of asserting their rights.
Caring enough about your family, friends, and coworkers to not needlessly endanger them is not cowardice.
-Rex Hondo-
As for those who declare that they would have aired the episode…mm hmm. So you’re willing to take the risk. Very commendable. And would you have consulted the hundreds of employees of Comedy Central before putting them at risk? And would you be there at every taping of the “Daily Show” to share the risk? How about the several thousand employees of Viacom? Going to run it past them? See how they feel about it?
Um, no. I’m pretty sure Marvel doesn’t run every story by every emplyee to see if there is any chance of someone objecting. I can’t imagine anyone doing that.
In large part Comedy central created the problem for themselves. Had they told Matt and Trey they had the same right to lampoon Islam as they do any other religion I think those two episodes would have been very different.
And while you’re pondering that, consider this: Just as people have a right of free speech to say what they want…Comedy Central has an equal right to air what they want, and what they don’t.
Absolutely. In my opinion, the desision they made was short sighted and could very well lead to greater controversies and thus even more danger to the employees you expressed such concern for in the very near future. I wonder if they consulted them?
PAD –
Just as people have a right of free speech to say what they want…Comedy Central has an equal right to air what they want, and what they don’t.
And I have the right to call them for being hypocrits against what they’ve done in the past.
Rex Hondo –
So, don’t fret TOO much PAD. Most of the complaining is pretty much a geek version of macho armchair-quarterback horseshit.
Go find a mirror and look in it, Rex.
This isn’t horseshit by any stretch of the imagination.
For a guy like PAD who does what he does in the name of free speech, I guess I’d have to say I’m shocked that he’s approving of what CC did.
What’s complete horseshit is to constantly drag out the thought that showing Mohammed is going to put the lives of everybody who ever has, does, or ever will work at CC or Viacom in danger.
We live with danger every fûçkìņg day already because we’re in the Middle East, among other things.
Yet I’m supposed to worry about an image of Mohammed?
Yeah, I’ll remember that the next time we invade another Islamic-majority country.
And, in case you find fault with this post, PAD, I’m NOT posting in anonymity.
Go find a mirror and look in it, Rex.
Sure, I’ve got no problem with what I see. I’m not the one passing self righteous judgement on people doing their jobs.
I’m seeing a whole lot of “If it were me…” Well guess what. It’s NOT you. You aren’t the one who has to answer to a board of directors, and through them, answer to a group of stockholders. It wasn’t your decision to make, and to pretend that you are somehow wiser or more qualified to make that decision than people under pressures and influences you don’t and can’t understand IS pure, unadulterated horseshit.
Sure, if they had aired it, nothing may have happened. However, if you’re cut off in traffic by a car full of, shall we say, inner city teens, do you give them the bird, maybe shout a few obscenities? They probably aren’t gáņg báņgërš. Or do you grit your teeth and keep your mouth shut. How about if you have your wife and kids in the car? Are you a coward for not exercising your right to free speech then?
-Rex Hondo-
Bill Myers: Peter, I had no idea that in addition to being a hard-working writer you were also secretly an executive at Comedy Central, and an Al Qaeda operative to boot. How do you find the time?
Luigi Novi: I dunno, how do find the time to train those legs of yours to make those amazing leaps in logic, like the one you just did, which says that anyone who takes a position you disagree with or don’t undertand is an operative in a terrorist organization, even he’s Jewish and that organization is among other things, anti-Semitic?
Peter David: I think it’s pretty amusing that people so craven they post from anonymity sit in judgment of others and accuse THEM of cowardice.
Luigi Novi: Not that I condone Bill Myers’ ad hominem vitriol, but how do you know that that’s not his real name?
Peter David: As for those who declare that they would have aired the episode…mm hmm. So you’re willing to take the risk. Very commendable. And would you have consulted the hundreds of employees of Comedy Central before putting them at risk? And would you be there at every taping of the “Daily Show” to share the risk? How about the several thousand employees of Viacom? Going to run it past them? See how they feel about it?
Luigi Novi: No, because there is no such “risk”. Who in the Muslim world even heard of South Park? A depiction of Mohammed has been present in the opening title sequence since the beginning of the 10th season, and in an episode, and no one said anything. And even if they did, they don’t bomb tv show sets, certainly not for something like this. They problems with us are due to their perception of our foreign policy, not our TV programs. Establish that there would be such a risk, and then we’ll talk.
As for the employees, this may be my preconceptions, but if I had to guess (since we’re talking about hypothetical scenarios anyway), I’d say that those guys have enough of a sense of humor, and enough of a disdain for censorship, that they’d laugh off my concerns. Just my hypothesis. Your individual hypothetical mileage may vary. 🙂
Peter David: And while you’re pondering that, consider this: Just as people have a right of free speech to say what they want…Comedy Central has an equal right to air what they want, and what they don’t.
Luigi Novi: I seem to recall, in a previous thread about not buying Dixie Chicks music in particular, and not patronizing the work of an artist you don’t like for personal reasons in general, you asserting that just because someone has the right to do something, doesn’t make it right. Does that principle not apply here?
Yeah, they can air whatever they want. That doesn’t mean that they’re not hypocrites, or that they’re not caving into terrorist threats that haven’t even been made.